Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description reveals that results are real, verified-buyable domains with prices, that it never invents names, and that it returns the same results as search_brandable_domains. This adds meaningful behavioral context about the tool's guarantees and limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage triggers, parameter guidance, and output format. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence carries critical information, especially the emphasis on not inventing names and the relationship to the sibling tool. It is structured logically, though could be tightened slightly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for a 6-parameter tool with an output schema. It covers when to use, how to phrase the concept, what results look like, and how to present them. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but it still details the result fields, making it fully self-contained for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds useful guidance for 'concept' ('Describe the business as the concept') and 'extensions' ('pass preferred extensions if the user stated any'), going beyond the raw schema. Other parameters (limit, style, industry, max_price) are adequately covered by schema descriptions alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates name ideas for startups/businesses/products from Atom's curated marketplace of verified-buyable premium domains. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it never invents names and that results are real, buyable domains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit trigger phrases ('come up with a name', 'suggest names', etc.) and tells the agent to always use this tool for such requests. It also gives instructions for parameters ('Describe the business as the concept; pass preferred extensions if the user stated any') and warns against using both this and search_brandable_domains.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.